Before I get to the film, I would like to mention something I noticed on television the other day. I've been a huge fan of the show Bizarre Foods for quite a while, and have seen that guy eat everything from fresh cow placenta to popped sorghum. He's visited just about every country on the map. As of yet though, I have not seen him do a fully Native American episode yet. There have been several from various places in the United States, but not 'Native American' cuisine. So far all I've seen is fry bread and various organ meats! He was doing an episode in Arizona and it appeared that many of the people he was talking to were of American Indian descent. The only foods of theirs that was mentioned though was the fry bread being sold from a food truck and one family's lamb barbecue. Andrew, the host, was given a piece of fry bread filled with meat, cheese, and fixings. He loved it and called it a Navajo taco. This makes me curious about the traditional food of various tribes. Did they ever have complex dishes unique to their cultural tradition or was the food always simple and not combined with many other ingredients?
Obviously Bizarre Foods is not the most reliable source because it focuses on the weird. The Navajo family in question was actually living in Monument Valley. Having familiarized myself somewhat with this location after watching both Reel Injun and seeing lots of western film information in my film genres class regarding John Ford and John Wayne movies, it's a bit surreal. All those movies feature lots of stereotypes getting shot and/or killed in unpleasant ways. I've now seen a clip of John Wayne shooting a dead Indian in the face. (You just never think of him doing that kind of thing) Meanwhile, these real Indians are living where they shot these movies. They're living where someone playing a member of the tribe was shot in the face by one of John Wayne's blanks.
As far as the non-fry bread portion of the segment... There was a lamb's head cooked whole, meat wrapped in intestines, and a blood, potato, and blue corn sausage sealed in the stomach. It makes me wonder how common these kinds of seemingly exotic cuts are with American Indians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkUA4dETYwo (fry bread taco is about three and a half minutes in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtGAvj13c1o (skip past the intro sequence)
The first thing I noticed in the film is how it is structured exactly like the Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven. It's a very nonlinear mix of scenes punctuated by traditional cultural images.
One thing I wondered about was the somewhat conflicting image of homosexuality between the book and the film. The one time it is mentioned in the book, there seems to be a unique kind of respect for them. I remember something about a special magic or medicine that they had over heterosexuals. meanwhile, in the film, the poet character is isolated from his old reservation by his new life. No one seems to care about his 'special medicine'. Do they just not even pay attention to it since the cultural separation is so much more important than any orientation issues or ideas? Does being Indian override being gay or straight? If it does you would think that it also overpowers where you live, whether or not it is in the reservation. In such a close knit community it seems weird to me that they would even consider turning away a fellow Indian when he comes back. Sure, he has 'sold out' in a sense, but it can also be viewed as an embracing one's heritage.
I found myself identifying with Seymour Polatkin because of his success. The guy made a career and a reputation out of the way he views his own life. he inspires people. he's not afraid to admit who he is. Aristotle on the other hand, really contrasted those feelings. He randomly assaults someone because they're white and he's seen sniffing at a gas tank like some fourteen year old suburban skateboard punk. The fact remains that both these people started with the same out-of-focus opportunities and in-focus community and only one of them acted responsibly and ethically whether or not they 'abandoned' their family, heritage, or duty.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Latest Week of Native American Literature
One discussion question in particular for The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven stuck out as representative of the entire book. It was the one regarding the mingling of humor, sorrow, and tragedy in the stories. Although we discussed this in class, I would like to once again point out the portion of the text where Sherman Alexie literally answers that question. It's a few lines from 'The Approximate Size of My Favorite Tumor'.
"Still, you have to realize that laughter saved Norma and me from pain too. Humor was an antiseptic that cleaned the deepest of personal wounds."
While Sherman Alexie seems to occasionally tout this trait as something uniquely Indian, I don't really think it is. It strikes me as something that is entirely accurate, but representative of the entire human species. I believe the root of this kind of statement is the same one that created the old idiom that 'laughter is the best medicine'. After all, Alexie is basically calling it that when he uses the term antiseptic. Laughter like the kind in these stories often shows up in action/ adventure movies. The protagonist will go through something strenuous and damaging, then when he finds out it was futile or that it might continue endlessly, he just laughs as the blood trickles down his forehead. (The episode of Nightmares and Dreamscapes called 'Battleground' comes to mind) It's an interesting phenomenon I've experienced myself after falling down an extended flight of concrete stairs. I lost most of the skin on my chin, both my knees, both my elbows, and both my shoulders. When I stood up and turned around, blood already leaving a trail, I realized I had to walk all the way back up the winding set of stairs to access other people or bandages. So I laughed. Then I started on my way back up. Although I certainly didn't feel it with the same intensity that a Native American might when joking about a racist cop or the size and shape of his tumors, I think I can accurately report on what it does emotionally. It's sort of a reset. Everything that bothered you before seems to vanish. The clean slate after the laughter quickly gets muddied up again, but there is a moment of clarity whee all that exists is the laughter.
While I haven't been very appreciative of Alexie's prose up until this point, I do have to admit that he captures this moment where nothing but laughter exists perfectly. While I don't think Native Americans experience the sensation differently than their fellow humans, they may have had to resort to this kind of 'antiseptic' a lot longer than other groups.
Whenever I watch a civil rights documentary or read some kind of slave narrative, I notice that the African American communities tend to bond over songs and some ideal of internal strength. This is opposed to Indians, who have invested their emotional fortitude in the ability to laugh and absorb the Popular culture ideas of their history into their lives. It's almost as if the majority of American Indians subconsciously decided to view their history as a sort of sour joke, the kind someone might laugh at without smiling.
The idea of an Indian laughing without smiling actually made me think about the Cleveland Indians baseball team's mascot. Seeing it now and comparing it to Indian culture is kind of a moment of horrific realization.
http://www.sportsgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/indian-wp-1.jpg
having read Sherman Alexie's book... I can't think of anything that looks less Indian than that. Even Thomas builds-the-fire from Smoke Signals doesn't smile like that. It reminded me of the racist caricatures of black people that used to show up in Warner Bros. cartoons. (Midnight skin and big gummy worm like red lips) I've also got a book of political cartoons made by Dr. Seuss during World War II, and it reminded me of the Japanese caricatures with the buck teeth and the squinting eyes. Looking at it makes me think that the Cleveland Indian really reflects white people a lot more than Indians. That creepy cartoon smile seems to say, "Hey, look what we did to the Indians. We took everything. We called them savages. Then we forced them to show their pearly whites on merchandise." it's like the Cleveland Indian knows his own existence is as a hideous money grubbing exaggeration of a people it wouldn't bother to protect. it's sinister. All I can really say is... That is not an Indian's smile.
A quick wikipedia search has revealed something even more tasteless. The mascot's name is 'Chief Wahoo'. Seriously. If I had taken it upon myself to come up with a hideous insensitive cartoon name for an Indian designed to insult them, I could not come up with anything better. While I agree that the Cleveland Indians have the first amendment right to use the mascot and the name, I think it's in incredibly poor taste that they continue to do so. I imagine it's a combination of the merchandisers not wanting to lose all the nice profit a good recognizable logo leads to and the baseball fans who are typically American in that they never want anything to change even if it will erase something so inappropriate. I mean, imagine the outrage if they changed their team name to the Cleveland A-rabs and had a turban-headed tan-skinned head with sinister curly eyebrows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wahoo
"Still, you have to realize that laughter saved Norma and me from pain too. Humor was an antiseptic that cleaned the deepest of personal wounds."
While Sherman Alexie seems to occasionally tout this trait as something uniquely Indian, I don't really think it is. It strikes me as something that is entirely accurate, but representative of the entire human species. I believe the root of this kind of statement is the same one that created the old idiom that 'laughter is the best medicine'. After all, Alexie is basically calling it that when he uses the term antiseptic. Laughter like the kind in these stories often shows up in action/ adventure movies. The protagonist will go through something strenuous and damaging, then when he finds out it was futile or that it might continue endlessly, he just laughs as the blood trickles down his forehead. (The episode of Nightmares and Dreamscapes called 'Battleground' comes to mind) It's an interesting phenomenon I've experienced myself after falling down an extended flight of concrete stairs. I lost most of the skin on my chin, both my knees, both my elbows, and both my shoulders. When I stood up and turned around, blood already leaving a trail, I realized I had to walk all the way back up the winding set of stairs to access other people or bandages. So I laughed. Then I started on my way back up. Although I certainly didn't feel it with the same intensity that a Native American might when joking about a racist cop or the size and shape of his tumors, I think I can accurately report on what it does emotionally. It's sort of a reset. Everything that bothered you before seems to vanish. The clean slate after the laughter quickly gets muddied up again, but there is a moment of clarity whee all that exists is the laughter.
While I haven't been very appreciative of Alexie's prose up until this point, I do have to admit that he captures this moment where nothing but laughter exists perfectly. While I don't think Native Americans experience the sensation differently than their fellow humans, they may have had to resort to this kind of 'antiseptic' a lot longer than other groups.
Whenever I watch a civil rights documentary or read some kind of slave narrative, I notice that the African American communities tend to bond over songs and some ideal of internal strength. This is opposed to Indians, who have invested their emotional fortitude in the ability to laugh and absorb the Popular culture ideas of their history into their lives. It's almost as if the majority of American Indians subconsciously decided to view their history as a sort of sour joke, the kind someone might laugh at without smiling.
The idea of an Indian laughing without smiling actually made me think about the Cleveland Indians baseball team's mascot. Seeing it now and comparing it to Indian culture is kind of a moment of horrific realization.
http://www.sportsgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/indian-wp-1.jpg
having read Sherman Alexie's book... I can't think of anything that looks less Indian than that. Even Thomas builds-the-fire from Smoke Signals doesn't smile like that. It reminded me of the racist caricatures of black people that used to show up in Warner Bros. cartoons. (Midnight skin and big gummy worm like red lips) I've also got a book of political cartoons made by Dr. Seuss during World War II, and it reminded me of the Japanese caricatures with the buck teeth and the squinting eyes. Looking at it makes me think that the Cleveland Indian really reflects white people a lot more than Indians. That creepy cartoon smile seems to say, "Hey, look what we did to the Indians. We took everything. We called them savages. Then we forced them to show their pearly whites on merchandise." it's like the Cleveland Indian knows his own existence is as a hideous money grubbing exaggeration of a people it wouldn't bother to protect. it's sinister. All I can really say is... That is not an Indian's smile.
A quick wikipedia search has revealed something even more tasteless. The mascot's name is 'Chief Wahoo'. Seriously. If I had taken it upon myself to come up with a hideous insensitive cartoon name for an Indian designed to insult them, I could not come up with anything better. While I agree that the Cleveland Indians have the first amendment right to use the mascot and the name, I think it's in incredibly poor taste that they continue to do so. I imagine it's a combination of the merchandisers not wanting to lose all the nice profit a good recognizable logo leads to and the baseball fans who are typically American in that they never want anything to change even if it will erase something so inappropriate. I mean, imagine the outrage if they changed their team name to the Cleveland A-rabs and had a turban-headed tan-skinned head with sinister curly eyebrows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wahoo
Monday, February 6, 2012
Native American Literature Week Four
Having just finished The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven, I thought it would be appropriate to devote the entirety of this week's blog post to it. Although I certainly can't say that I even came close to enjoying the book, it did make me wonder about several things in the American Indian community.
For starters, would most Indians consider Sherman Alexie's version of them true? I don't doubt that many of the events depicted in the book are accurate to his childhood, adolescence, and adult life, but I'm not so sure about the ideas he fuses into the stories. There seems to be a definite current of inherited defeat that is presented so literally that it's like a genetic disorder. Many of the characters seem to be born with their spirits stepped on. While I look at this and consider it to be the overall cultural effect of various forms of suppression, oppression, and repression, I wonder why Alexie didn't choose to have a single character that led a happy, successful, and fulfilling existence. While the Spokane Indian reservation does seem like a depressing place to live, he takes great pains to describe how Indians can always laugh. They laugh at themselves, they laugh at their physical injuries, and they laugh at their diseases. So why is it so hard for them to find rays of hope? To me it seemed like Alexie was trying to say that Indians live a more 'in the moment' kind of life, but that life style seems to lose its validity when most of the moments are either seen through a drunken haze or spent toiling under the judgmental nose of whitey. That seems like something that would foster a united, sober, and maybe slightly xenophobic attitude. Instead, the Indians seem to regard other Indians not as brothers and sisters but as rivals and drinking buddies.
I imagine a large part of my confusion comes from the 'well you didn't live it' factor but I don't believe for a second that there wasn't one Indian from that reservation that lived a happy existence. I'm willing to bet there was more than a handful of them that never had alcohol problems and actually had hobbies separate from dancing, storytelling, playing basketball, and making fry bread. (Coincidentally, fry bread seems to be just about the only pleasant image in the book)
Another thing I would like to point out is the similarity between Sherman Alexie's 'stories' told by his characters, and the trickster tales that we read. They share the same kind of logic that I just can't wrap my head around. For instance, when several Indian boys tell Thomas Builds-the-fire to incorporate the surrounding elements into a story, the story makes very little sense. it involves an Indian stealing a hot dog and drowning and a hot dog vendor who turns himself into a duck. The other boys deem Thomas's story to be so good that they give him twenty dollars and some change. Just like with Coyote and rabbit though, I don't get where the 'quality' of the story comes from. How are we supposed to tell if one trickster tale or Indian story is better than another when none of them establish an internal logic?
That leads me to my biggest issue with Alexie's writing. He uses so many contradictory statements that I lose track of what he may or may not be trying to say. He describes victory as defeat, lovers as people who hurt you, and friends as the ones who used to beat you bloody in the schoolyard. While one of these on their own could be used to shine a light on the complex and admittedly contradictory nature of human relationships, taking them all together just creates a puddle of a world where no one ever achieves anything. All they ever seem to get is a good laugh, hung over, or some cognitive dissonance.
Is this how Alexie sees life? Or is it how he sees the life of an Indian? Either way it presents a world view of constant struggle and an absence of progress. It's like watching someone run in place, give up, turn around, and then run in place in the opposite direction. It makes me wonder why he really wrote this book. Was it intended just as a window into that reservation at the time he grew up? If it was you could probably call it a success. if it was meant to show the richness of American Indian thought, soul, and culture... well I can't say it failed because it doesn't even seem to have tried.
What I'm hoping to get in one of the other books we read this semester is a point of view that is Anti-Alexie. I want to hear from an American Indian that seems defiant rather than defeated. Maybe that's just me playing into another bias or stereotype. I honestly don't know. I turn to books for education, hope, wit, and thrills... none of which seem to come from Sherman Alexie.
For starters, would most Indians consider Sherman Alexie's version of them true? I don't doubt that many of the events depicted in the book are accurate to his childhood, adolescence, and adult life, but I'm not so sure about the ideas he fuses into the stories. There seems to be a definite current of inherited defeat that is presented so literally that it's like a genetic disorder. Many of the characters seem to be born with their spirits stepped on. While I look at this and consider it to be the overall cultural effect of various forms of suppression, oppression, and repression, I wonder why Alexie didn't choose to have a single character that led a happy, successful, and fulfilling existence. While the Spokane Indian reservation does seem like a depressing place to live, he takes great pains to describe how Indians can always laugh. They laugh at themselves, they laugh at their physical injuries, and they laugh at their diseases. So why is it so hard for them to find rays of hope? To me it seemed like Alexie was trying to say that Indians live a more 'in the moment' kind of life, but that life style seems to lose its validity when most of the moments are either seen through a drunken haze or spent toiling under the judgmental nose of whitey. That seems like something that would foster a united, sober, and maybe slightly xenophobic attitude. Instead, the Indians seem to regard other Indians not as brothers and sisters but as rivals and drinking buddies.
I imagine a large part of my confusion comes from the 'well you didn't live it' factor but I don't believe for a second that there wasn't one Indian from that reservation that lived a happy existence. I'm willing to bet there was more than a handful of them that never had alcohol problems and actually had hobbies separate from dancing, storytelling, playing basketball, and making fry bread. (Coincidentally, fry bread seems to be just about the only pleasant image in the book)
Another thing I would like to point out is the similarity between Sherman Alexie's 'stories' told by his characters, and the trickster tales that we read. They share the same kind of logic that I just can't wrap my head around. For instance, when several Indian boys tell Thomas Builds-the-fire to incorporate the surrounding elements into a story, the story makes very little sense. it involves an Indian stealing a hot dog and drowning and a hot dog vendor who turns himself into a duck. The other boys deem Thomas's story to be so good that they give him twenty dollars and some change. Just like with Coyote and rabbit though, I don't get where the 'quality' of the story comes from. How are we supposed to tell if one trickster tale or Indian story is better than another when none of them establish an internal logic?
That leads me to my biggest issue with Alexie's writing. He uses so many contradictory statements that I lose track of what he may or may not be trying to say. He describes victory as defeat, lovers as people who hurt you, and friends as the ones who used to beat you bloody in the schoolyard. While one of these on their own could be used to shine a light on the complex and admittedly contradictory nature of human relationships, taking them all together just creates a puddle of a world where no one ever achieves anything. All they ever seem to get is a good laugh, hung over, or some cognitive dissonance.
Is this how Alexie sees life? Or is it how he sees the life of an Indian? Either way it presents a world view of constant struggle and an absence of progress. It's like watching someone run in place, give up, turn around, and then run in place in the opposite direction. It makes me wonder why he really wrote this book. Was it intended just as a window into that reservation at the time he grew up? If it was you could probably call it a success. if it was meant to show the richness of American Indian thought, soul, and culture... well I can't say it failed because it doesn't even seem to have tried.
What I'm hoping to get in one of the other books we read this semester is a point of view that is Anti-Alexie. I want to hear from an American Indian that seems defiant rather than defeated. Maybe that's just me playing into another bias or stereotype. I honestly don't know. I turn to books for education, hope, wit, and thrills... none of which seem to come from Sherman Alexie.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Week Three of Native American Literature
To start things off this week, here's the trailer from the movie I discussed last time, The Indian in the Cupboard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp5P53ZGTmk I am still waiting to receive the film from Netflix, in order to do a comprehensive review of what stereotypes this kid's movie is guilty of, so I can't pass judgment yet. From the trailer though, it certainly looks like some of the issues shown in 'Reel Injun' will be present. The guy in the trailer certainly seemed to be acting like the 'noble savage'. One thing I wonder about though is whether the movie would actually be guilty of stereotyping. In the film, an action figure Indian is brought to life. Does this mean the figure would act like an actual American Indian? Or does it mean that it would act like the stereotypes that led to the action figure's creation? After all, when a kid plays with this toy, he's probably only got the old Hollywood stereotypes in mind. Again I'm reading into the film without having seen it, but I think that says something about how 'alive' or ideas of the Indians are even if they're incorrect. The miniature Indian in the film could literally be the embodiment of the 'reel injun' that so influences actual Indian communities as well as everyone else's idea of American Indians.
One thing that I would like to talk about over multiple blog posts (as I develop the idea further) is something that I plan to write. As a creative writing major with a focus in speculative fiction, I do want to include certain aesthetics in my work. One idea I've had has been heavily influenced by American Indian culture from the start.
The idea is simple. There will be a tribe of American Indian-like people who have not yet had contact with other cultures. One young individual would have the 'gift' of being able to commune with the minds of animals and they use this ability to hunt by hypnotizing animals into submission. When armored 'European' individuals show up and start killing everyone, this young Indian will have to use their ability to gain insight from the the animals that can help them defeat the 'Europeans'. Each animal's mind would be represented by a new landscape the young Indian could enter. This gives me a chance to sue things like the trickster tales to influence the worlds of the animals. It would sort of be the opposite of a trickster tale. The intelligent spirit of an animal would put the young Indian through a test in order to impart wisdom to them.
I was even thinking to include some lines from a classic piece of writing. (Points if you know where these phrases come from) I wold have each animal bestow an ability to the young Indian. As examples: the mole's dim curtain, the lynx's beam, and the spider's touch.
I think the story would be a great allegory for someone becoming a vegetarian. (Though I'm not one, it's still something fun to explore) So the question is... which tribe or which traditions would I want to use as the basis for the people in my story? My goal over the next few weeks is to report (in portions of blog posts) on a particular tribe's life style and try to find the one that would best fit this idea. Then I can use it to help build the fictitious world.
As far as the film about the Indian holocaust... I have to admit I was shocked. While I was well aware of our long history of oppressing the natives, I had no idea that there were so many recent incidents or that so many civilians were put in harm's way. I honestly had not heard much at all about the incident at Wounded Knee. The fact that a small faction of Indians were still fighting for their rights with guns just sixteen years before I was born is sort of surreal. My parents were watching this on the news when it happened. it makes me wonder what kind of conversations the Indians had during the occupation. They had to know how badly they were outnumbered and outgunned, so what was the atmosphere in those buildings like? Were they happy to finally be doing something about it? Were they fearing for their lives? Were they filled with hatred for the FBI agents outside? Whether this happened or not, I picture them sitting inside, a few guns trained out the window, and everyone else circled together and singing a native song in low voices.
Honestly, I don't think I could have stood against them. I would just let them absorb the town into their land. In all honesty, the Indians seemed far more human in this situation than the government's response. It didn't even seem like they tried to be understanding. They just sent the FBI and the police in, guns blazing. After just reading about the Oglala nation on the Wikipedia page for the incident, I've decided they will be the first culture I will research for my story project.
So until next week....
One thing that I would like to talk about over multiple blog posts (as I develop the idea further) is something that I plan to write. As a creative writing major with a focus in speculative fiction, I do want to include certain aesthetics in my work. One idea I've had has been heavily influenced by American Indian culture from the start.
The idea is simple. There will be a tribe of American Indian-like people who have not yet had contact with other cultures. One young individual would have the 'gift' of being able to commune with the minds of animals and they use this ability to hunt by hypnotizing animals into submission. When armored 'European' individuals show up and start killing everyone, this young Indian will have to use their ability to gain insight from the the animals that can help them defeat the 'Europeans'. Each animal's mind would be represented by a new landscape the young Indian could enter. This gives me a chance to sue things like the trickster tales to influence the worlds of the animals. It would sort of be the opposite of a trickster tale. The intelligent spirit of an animal would put the young Indian through a test in order to impart wisdom to them.
I was even thinking to include some lines from a classic piece of writing. (Points if you know where these phrases come from) I wold have each animal bestow an ability to the young Indian. As examples: the mole's dim curtain, the lynx's beam, and the spider's touch.
I think the story would be a great allegory for someone becoming a vegetarian. (Though I'm not one, it's still something fun to explore) So the question is... which tribe or which traditions would I want to use as the basis for the people in my story? My goal over the next few weeks is to report (in portions of blog posts) on a particular tribe's life style and try to find the one that would best fit this idea. Then I can use it to help build the fictitious world.
As far as the film about the Indian holocaust... I have to admit I was shocked. While I was well aware of our long history of oppressing the natives, I had no idea that there were so many recent incidents or that so many civilians were put in harm's way. I honestly had not heard much at all about the incident at Wounded Knee. The fact that a small faction of Indians were still fighting for their rights with guns just sixteen years before I was born is sort of surreal. My parents were watching this on the news when it happened. it makes me wonder what kind of conversations the Indians had during the occupation. They had to know how badly they were outnumbered and outgunned, so what was the atmosphere in those buildings like? Were they happy to finally be doing something about it? Were they fearing for their lives? Were they filled with hatred for the FBI agents outside? Whether this happened or not, I picture them sitting inside, a few guns trained out the window, and everyone else circled together and singing a native song in low voices.
Honestly, I don't think I could have stood against them. I would just let them absorb the town into their land. In all honesty, the Indians seemed far more human in this situation than the government's response. It didn't even seem like they tried to be understanding. They just sent the FBI and the police in, guns blazing. After just reading about the Oglala nation on the Wikipedia page for the incident, I've decided they will be the first culture I will research for my story project.
So until next week....
Monday, January 23, 2012
Week Two of Native American Literature
I have successfully finished the book of native American trickster tales. I'm going to comment again on how weird myth logic is. There's nothing wrong with drawing influence from the myths that make up the history of storytelling, but I've never understood why people were entertained by reading the myths themselves in their original formats. Myths are just the prototypes of the modern story. Would you want to make your breakfast in the prototype toaster or a modern day one? Myths just fail at so many things that modern stories are expected to do. There's a time tested (albeit extremely western) pattern that stories are supposed to follow. A protagonist gets caught up in a difficult or dangerous situation and usually wins the day through some personal growth. These stories are also expected to stick to their own logic.
These myths bring in way too many deus ex machinas. Characters pull out materials we didn't know they had, use powers we weren't told about, and show a great disparity between their size and the things they can interact with. For example, when a flying creature spills some liquid it becomes the ocean. Did I miss something? How big was this bird? Why/how did this liquid expand to become that much fluid?
That's why I've never understood the value of myths as anything other than prototype stories. They're not as entertaining as modern stories because the formula hadn't been perfected yet and their value as 'explanations' for things like 'why is there a moon?' or 'why do bears love salmon so much?' is nonexistent. Just making something up to explain something is worse than a waste of time because often people will be perfectly satisfied with non-explanations.
Branching from that thought, one thing I would be incredibly curious about is the state of the scientific process in various Native American tribes. I know most of their cultural heritage would be pre-enlightenment but I have to think they had specific members or processes that were very good at figuring out the natural world. Did they ever conduct experiments with the goal of figuring out better ways to hunt, farm, craft, or treat illnesses? Obviously this happens at some pace in every early civilization but were there any native American that actually made it their goal to figure out how and why various things functioned? Did they hold any semi-scientific theories or ideas in high regard or was it literally all myths? Where d we think Native American civilization would be scientifically if it had never, to this day, come into contact with other human civilizations?
On an unrelated note, this course has me thinking about an important film from my childhood: The Indian in the Cupboard. As I haven't seen it in several years, my memories of its high quality may be mostly nostalgia but I remember the concept clearly. A young boy discovers a magic cupboard. When he places something resembling life, like a little toy Indian, inside, locks it, and opens it again, the item comes to life. The little boy then learns many lessons from the little Indian about being a responsible man. Now I know I;m really stretching this because it is a movie intended for young people, but I think the set says something interesting about the relationship between American Indians and Americans. The Indian's tiny stature could represent the fact that Indians became a minority. The innocence of the child character is used in the film to show how unfamiliar he is with other cultures. The Indian remains stoic and skilled despite his diminutive size and it just goes to show us that we can always become more mature by learning from other historical cultures, no matter how small their representation in today's society. I have no idea if that's legitimate but it's just what came to mind. As soon as I'm done here I'll probably add it to my Netflix list to re-investigate it. I have no doubt that even if it has a positive message that includes most of the standard Indian stereotypes.
I've been wondering about one other thing lately too, and it could certainly tie into American Indian culture. I've always had an interest in man's best friend, so what did Native Americans think of dogs? Did any of the tribes ever incorporate domesticated canines? I'm willing to bet they were direct competitors with the American Gray wolf. Since the gray wolf is the ancestor of all modern domestic dogs, I wonder if the Indians ever considered a partnership as something worth pursuing? Or were they always rivals? Did wolves steal meat if it was left unattended? Did they significantly fear getting caught out in the wilderness with wolves around? It appears that some tribes viewed coyotes as troublesome tricksters and I know for a fact that most wolves hate coyotes with a passion... so they have that in common. (poor coyotes get such a bad rap just for being opportunistic)
These myths bring in way too many deus ex machinas. Characters pull out materials we didn't know they had, use powers we weren't told about, and show a great disparity between their size and the things they can interact with. For example, when a flying creature spills some liquid it becomes the ocean. Did I miss something? How big was this bird? Why/how did this liquid expand to become that much fluid?
That's why I've never understood the value of myths as anything other than prototype stories. They're not as entertaining as modern stories because the formula hadn't been perfected yet and their value as 'explanations' for things like 'why is there a moon?' or 'why do bears love salmon so much?' is nonexistent. Just making something up to explain something is worse than a waste of time because often people will be perfectly satisfied with non-explanations.
Branching from that thought, one thing I would be incredibly curious about is the state of the scientific process in various Native American tribes. I know most of their cultural heritage would be pre-enlightenment but I have to think they had specific members or processes that were very good at figuring out the natural world. Did they ever conduct experiments with the goal of figuring out better ways to hunt, farm, craft, or treat illnesses? Obviously this happens at some pace in every early civilization but were there any native American that actually made it their goal to figure out how and why various things functioned? Did they hold any semi-scientific theories or ideas in high regard or was it literally all myths? Where d we think Native American civilization would be scientifically if it had never, to this day, come into contact with other human civilizations?
On an unrelated note, this course has me thinking about an important film from my childhood: The Indian in the Cupboard. As I haven't seen it in several years, my memories of its high quality may be mostly nostalgia but I remember the concept clearly. A young boy discovers a magic cupboard. When he places something resembling life, like a little toy Indian, inside, locks it, and opens it again, the item comes to life. The little boy then learns many lessons from the little Indian about being a responsible man. Now I know I;m really stretching this because it is a movie intended for young people, but I think the set says something interesting about the relationship between American Indians and Americans. The Indian's tiny stature could represent the fact that Indians became a minority. The innocence of the child character is used in the film to show how unfamiliar he is with other cultures. The Indian remains stoic and skilled despite his diminutive size and it just goes to show us that we can always become more mature by learning from other historical cultures, no matter how small their representation in today's society. I have no idea if that's legitimate but it's just what came to mind. As soon as I'm done here I'll probably add it to my Netflix list to re-investigate it. I have no doubt that even if it has a positive message that includes most of the standard Indian stereotypes.
I've been wondering about one other thing lately too, and it could certainly tie into American Indian culture. I've always had an interest in man's best friend, so what did Native Americans think of dogs? Did any of the tribes ever incorporate domesticated canines? I'm willing to bet they were direct competitors with the American Gray wolf. Since the gray wolf is the ancestor of all modern domestic dogs, I wonder if the Indians ever considered a partnership as something worth pursuing? Or were they always rivals? Did wolves steal meat if it was left unattended? Did they significantly fear getting caught out in the wilderness with wolves around? It appears that some tribes viewed coyotes as troublesome tricksters and I know for a fact that most wolves hate coyotes with a passion... so they have that in common. (poor coyotes get such a bad rap just for being opportunistic)
Monday, January 16, 2012
Week one of Native American Literature
When it comes to the film Reel Injun, I was much more intrigued. It was disappointing to find out that all the headbands I've seen on all those native Americans were really just wig holders. To see American Indian children growing up with our the Hollywood interpretation of them influencing their own self-image... is heartbreaking. I knew there would be a certain amount of guilt in this class and I'm already feeling a thick layer of it poured over me like icy rotten frosting.
I was happy to see Adam beach on there because, prior to the viewing, I was already a fan of his. He portrayed an American Indian fireworks stand owner in the silly film Joe Dirt and (in a much better role) Detective Beach in a season or two of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. I was legitimately disappointed when his character was written out because his unique delivery of lines and familiarity with every corner of the city added a quirky, mysterious element to the cast.
I was shocked when I saw the John Wayne clip showed the duke shooting a dead Indian in the face... Although I've never watched his movies I'd always assumed he was one of those loner cowboys that always did the right thing no matter what the law or the outlaws said. It reminded me of the recent event where U.S. troops pissed on the corpse of a dead Taliban fighter. There are major differences between the two situations ( the most of which is the fiction vs. truth element) but they show the same disrespect for human life that I don't want to see coming from an American. It reminds me that the model of the hero is always up for revision.
The last thing I will make note of is how similar American Indian poetry is to Western poetry. I'm not sure if anyone will find that incorrect or offensive, but keep in mind that I do not enjoy poetry and have never been able to appreciate the 'rhythm' that poets are always going on about. the night chant just seems like a bunch of repetitive dreamy images with no direction or value... just like western poetry.
I'll end by saying that I prefer my coyotes to be of the Warner Bros. variety but I would totally love it if modern American Indians showed up in film and voiced their opinions more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)